Listen to this episode here, and here to the other episoades.
The guest of this edition of the podcast is Raluca Șoaita, co-founder of Gaep Gallery and founder of Tesseract Architecture, the only architecture studio specialized in the medical field in Romania.
I think what I want is already happening. We see that art got much closer to the human dimension, the community, the social dimension. We see that art that is made by large teams, large communities. We saw that at Documenta this year. We see that art gets closer to architecture and that architecture gets closer to art. Architecture focuses much more on what the user and has reduced scale. The emotional element is being brought up more and more. From my point of view, this is a totally new way forward and it is very interesting to see how it develops.
Andrei Breahnă: Many of you listening to this podcast probably know Raluca or have read about her in the media, but you may not know so much about Raluca’s connection to art. Welcome, Raluca. I would like to ask you about your connection to art and how art came into your life?
Raluca Șoaita: Thank you for the invitation. Art came into my life together with architecture, as I am an architect and studied art during my university studies. Art has always been close to architecture and so I came into contact with it. It is true that, during my university years, art often stopped in the 60s and 70s, do did architecture. In fact, the trigger that captured my attention, so that afterwards art became a recurring part of my life, was the way I had contact with contemporary art, with artists in Romania who make contemporary art. I realized, in fact, what impact it can have on my daily work and on the way I create in architecture.
Andrei Breahnă: In architecture there are many examples of architects who, however, through their buildings, are quite assimilated with art, if we think of the Louis Vuitton Foundation designed by Frank Gehry. Does this seem to you to be a power shift, let’s say, between art and architecture, or can a building be a work of art? Does this diminish its role in the perception of architecture or vice versa? How do you see this power relationship, perhaps, between architecture and or space and art?
Raluca Șoaita: Architecture itself is an art. I stand for it loud and clear. It’s true that it is less and less seen as an art, since it has this material side. I mean we have a lot of ideas, but they have to be materialized. Buildings need to be made, structures that hold these buildings and that can actually be functional. Society has actually perceived it as a public good. Or, rather, they have put very strict rules on the realisation of these buildings. Often these rules can reduce the artistic effect. I think that both artists and architects, at least in Romania, are somewhere in the same area, given that neither artists, nor architects are necessarily understood by the society we live in. Why do I say that? There is little contact with art itself, and the profession of architect is not understood at all. Which means that we and you, more often than not, have to go through the same process of educating in the first part of our contact with the client, so that afterwards we can actually do our job.
Andrei Breahnă: Let’s go back to the idea of connection with the public, which I think is absolutely essential. We are looking at cities in Romania and I am referring here, let’s say, to recent contemporary architecture, leaving aside the manner in which it was built during the communist period, where we probably have relatively few examples of quality architecture. But, in contemporary architecture, however, we see, at least I speak as a general public, a rather low quality of the architectural act. Can we say that, perhaps, architects are not succeeding in imposing themselves vis-a-vis their clients, or what is lacking today in order to create better quality architecture that offers a kind of cultural dividend and added value in cities?
Raluca Șoaita: It’s exactly as I was saying earlier, given that most of the time, I take the role of the architect is not well understood, it’s very hard to do your job, when there are a lot of hurdles. What do I mean by that? The best way is to give an example. I can come up with ideas and concepts that represent my artistic visions very well. But, at the same time, if the person to whom I am presenting and who ultimately makes the decision about the project I am going to make, does not understand and I cannot have a fruitful discussion with him and convince him to accept my proposal, by the means of objective reasons, given the weak information/education, my work becomes more difficult. This is what happens in the Romanian society. The architect has not been close to the client, and the client hasn’t been nurtured in this respect. The Netherlands, in the 1970s, did a huge campaign throughout the country, which lasted for years, making the role of the architect known to the whole of society. Today, when you go to Holland, you can discuss aesthetics and interior design or architecture with a large part of that society, with any ordinary person you can have relevant discussions, so that they understand the reasons you bring to the table.
Andrei Breahnă: So it’s still a systemic problem, shall we say, related to the educational system, even to professionalization? Are there any solutions foreseen? What if there were, for example, a kind of museum of architecture or an institution with a well-defined, active role? Could educating the public about architecture solve this? If we are to make a comparison with arts, where can museums play such a role?
Raluca Șoaita: Of course they can have such a role, but I think that what is much more important, as for you, in arts, is a public that has not been exposed for years to the black period, as I call it, red, of Romania, to all to any type of culture, of cultural act. A society based on such an education cannot be brought before art, theatre, music or architecture, unless it is increasingly disposed and educated. I don’t know if school can necessarily cover all these aspects, maybe introducing more courses related to culture in school from a younger age or the bodies that there are. I’m also looking at the Order of Architects, the body that manages the whole perception of our profession in Romanian society, which should probably focus a lot more on a much bigger campaign to raise awareness of our role as architects in terms of building cities and buildings and so on.
Andrei Breahnă: And I would add here one more thing. There doesn’t seem to be that much interaction between disciplines or between creative industries. I mean we don’t see that many architects at exhibitions. There are architecture exhibitions, aren’t there? We are going to the Venice Architecture Biennale. My feeling is that these communities function more like closed bubbles and that there is no cross-linked between them.
Raluca Șoaita: I think this is a very important aspect, and I was saying this earlier in the way art has entered my life and, in fact, what I do every day. I think that art is a representation of the society we live in, and I, as an architect, create spaces that are and will be used by this society. In order for me to get as close as possible to the real need, which is not only technical or aesthetic, but also emotional, I need to understand all the issues of society. Through the filter of contemporary art, I understand more easily and I witness a much more interesting debate in which these issues are really highlighted. It’s like doing a short-cut of information. By looking at art, I can make an information shortcut, sometimes getting suggestions, solutions about how society should look like, which is very useful for me. Yes, I encourage architects to go towards the art world, because that’s exactly the dividend you can get back.
Andrei Breahnă: Related to art, let’s go back a bit to your co-founding of the gallery. We’ve been looking at art for many years, travelling, for over 10 years, applying ourselves to see the exhibition and follow the things we like. You’re also an applied collector of contemporary art, with increasingly international artists identified by you. Please tell me which artists you like and why? And when you collect or choose a piece of art, how do you choose it?
Raluca Șoaita: It is very hard to answer this question, because I like many artists, some more known, some less known. But I am sure that the trigger that draws my attention to a collectible or interesting work of art is the question that arises. A work of art raises a lot of questions for me. The moment that looking at it takes me to a familiar place, which probably also exists in my mind, and at that moment those many unanswered questions come up, I think that’s when I remain drawn to that work. I remember many years ago – and it’s a feeling I’m trying to feel now – I read a few years ago about Pierre Huyghe’s work at Documenta 13, that art work in which he launches himself into a forgotten space, a space in which there was absolutely nothing. He arranges it very subtly, so that visitors were wondering if he really had intervened on a hill, if he had built it, and, from time to time, you also came across some art works in that space, including Human, the dog who was walking around. I remember when I read about this work, I didn’t visit it, but when I read about it, a lot of directions opened up in my mind, including in the area of architecture. What is art? How far? How much does nature participate in it? How much does space, the city, participate? How much can the artist influence, how much can he leave art free in that space, in the public space, how much does he intervene, because he leaves it up to the future what will happen to that space. That is to say, the space remained there, nature kept creating products which were then recycled and so on.
But at the same time it also brought up a lot of questions. For me that means that I stop in front of a work and that is really a work that opens new horizons for me. Yes, and that’s what I want to collect.
Andrei Breahnă: Your answer is very elaborate and it ties in with another question about art in the public space. Because we are at this point of the podcast, towards the end of the project and at the time of the recording, a few days ago, we activated the last artwork in public space. This is Maria Mandea’s artwork, which is installed in front of the Gloria cinema in Sector 3 and will be there for several months. How do you see the role of art in the public space? In Romania, however, there are relatively few examples of art in the public space that go beyond the idea of a monument, of a commemorative object, often linked to the past, rather than the future. Can you think of a few examples?
Raluca Șoaita: Since we are talking about a public that is not necessarily exposed, I think the place where the public is exposed without realizing it, at least for a while, is the city. The more interventions there are, the more exposure there is, I think the more open the public will be to art. If Mohammed won’t come to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed. Exposure is very important. I think in Romania people don’t go because they are afraid that they lack information about the museum, or about art, or about contemporary art. When they walk through spaces where art exists, maybe today they don’t necessarily see it, but tomorrow they will notice it more and more. No one sees me there and doesn’t judge me because I’m am not in front of there. And then, people open more and more.
Andrei Breahnă: On the other hand, this seems to be a rather slow process though. Perhaps the state of city halls could have a more proactive role in creating more opportunities for artists to produce such works of art in the public space. We have relatively few examples in Romania where this happens. Can you give us some examples of projects in Romania or abroad that you are interested in, in the area of architecture, and that could possibly integrate the art area?
Raluca Șoaita: The most interesting thing would be to talk about our projects in which we integrate art, rather than giving examples. And I would talk about the Marie Curie hospital project, where the Asociația Dăruiește Viață raised money from the community and invested in the expansion of a hospital. And I would rather tell that our contribution as architects has been to look at people/users and at the needs other than the technical ones, which we know very well. We look at the patients. In medical, you’re afraid. If the moment I come up with elements that are not in medical and I can draw the patient’s attention to something else, then I participate a little bit in healing them. It’s a project in which we want to bring art and in which we have already started a selection of art works and we really want patients to go through this therapy process, even though art.
Andrei Breahnă: I find rather unusual that art could enter such a difficult ecosystem as the medical one, earlier than it could enter totally other kinds of ecosystems, urban, theoretically much more accessible. For listeners who are perhaps less connected to the art system, there are certainly a lot of events in Romania that have a dimension of art in the public space, but it’s not necessarily a programmatic approach that we see beyond biennials or festivals or the street art, which has started to develop. A program in which visual artists doing some type of research have the opportunity to deliver some kind of art or content to the public. The hospital can be a white canvas. I’ve really seen it like that for a lot of artists, especially since in the design you’ve taken care to create spaces where there can be artwork.
Raluca Șoaita: Not necessarily to create them, but to result, from this space that is very suitable for art. The project, being a community project, for sure we can find art here, rather than in the urban space.
Andrei Breahnă: I know you are a big fan of the future and you are always talking about it. What do you think is the role of art in the future or the role of architecture in the future?
Raluca Șoaita: It takes a lot of time and a big debate to answer such a question. I think what I want is already happening. We see that art got much closer to the human dimension, the community, the social dimension. We see that art that is made by large teams, large communities. We saw that at Documenta this year. We see that art gets closer to architecture and that architecture gets closer to art. Architecture focuses much more on what the user and has reduced scale. The emotional element is being brought up more and more. From my point of view, this is a totally new way forward and it is very interesting to see how it develops.
Andrei Breahnă: Raluca, thank you very much for accepting to participate in this podcast and I hope we will have the opportunity to continue this discussion about art and architecture, because it is obviously a vast subject.